Should the following be able to get legally married? Why or why not?

Question

1. Same sex couples
2. Couples who seek a term marriage (like a 1 year marriage)
3. Groups of 2 or more people
4. Faithless couples
5. Couples not able to reproduce
6. Felons
7. Sham husband-wife couples (where the husband or wife or both are are gay)
8. Mentally ill
9. Couples carrying genetic diseases
10. Mixed-race couples

Ah - good point. By faithless I actually meant non-religious. However the question of unfaithful couples is just as good - feel free to answer both ways.

Answer 1

1. No it's not proper
2. No for what reason do you need to marry someone for just a year? A Marriage is a life-time commitment.
3. No also improper
4. No There would be no reason for them to marry.
5. Yes Marriage isn't just based on reproducing
6. Sure Why not if they can find someone to marry them.
7. No for what reason?
8. Yes if they can understand what it is!
9. Yes They belong together.
10. Yes they are human too.

Answer 2

1. Same sex couples - Yes
2. Couples who seek a term marriage (like a 1 year marriage) - No, they should call it something like "roommates with benefits."
3. Groups of 2 or more people - Depends on their religion (Yes, if polygamy is accepted in their religion.)
4. Faithless couples - Yes
5. Couples not able to reproduce - Yes, if they want kids, they can always adopt.
6. Felons - Yes, if they've done the time AND they tell their potential spouse before getting engaged.
7. Sham husband-wife couples (where the husband or wife or both are are gay) - No, they're very likely to cheat.
8. Mentally ill - Yes
9. Couples carrying genetic diseases - Yes
10. Mixed-race couples - Yes

Answer 3

Marry civilly or marry in a church?


1. Same sex couples
Civil: Of course, if they show the same level of commitment required of mixed-gender couples
Church: Should be up to the individual church

2. Couples who seek a term marriage (like a 1 year marriage)
Civil: Would require revamping the meaning of marriage, which is an inducement on behavior in exchange for social benefits
Church: Up to the individual church


3. Groups of 2 or more people
Civil: Again, requires a change in definition of marriage as an inducement of behavior in exchange for benefits.
Church: Up to the individual church.

4. Faithless couples
Civil: Not sure what "faithless" means, but religion should have no bearing in civil unions.
Church: Up to the individual church

5. Couples not able to reproduce
Civil: Yes, of course
Church: Up to the individual church. Would be beyond cruel to prohibit such marriages or cancel them should medical issues arise post-marriage in my huble opinion.

6. Felons
Civil: Of course.
Church: Of course. Civil issues should have no bearing on religious standing

7. Sham husband-wife couples (where the husband or wife or both are are gay)
Civil: Sham is purposefully negative. Civil marriages are an inducement on behavior in exchange for benefits. Why would anyone care what happens between a man and a wife in private?
Church: without commenting on the "sham" part again, if the couple meets the religious requirements of the church, then sure.

8. Mentally ill
Civil: If they are able to perform the behaviors expected in exchange for the benefits, then sure. What, just because someone is temporarily ill with say, OCD, they can't get married or stay married?
Church: Of course, same for civil.

9. Couples carrying genetic diseases
Civil: Yes, pretty much all of us carry some genetic predisposition to trouble. That doesn't mean there will be offspring, or any offspring will be affected.
Church: Of course, what is in someone's genes does not seem to be in the bailiwick of any religion I know of.

10. Mixed-race couples
Civil: Of course.
Church: Of course. What religion preaches that one race is superior to another?

Answer 4

Should the following be able to get legally married? Why or why not?
1. Same sex couples - No because the Bible states those relationships are immoral
2. Couples who seek a term marriage (like a 1 year marriage) - Yes as long as it's for real
3. Groups of 2 or more people - No because a marriage should be between a man and a woman
4. Faithless couples - No because the Bible states adultery is wrong
5. Couples not able to reproduce - Yes
6. Felons - Yes if they've done the crime AND the time
7. Sham husband-wife couples (where the husband or wife or both are are gay) - No because the Bible states that homosexual relationships are wrong
8. Mentally ill - It depends on if the parties are mentally capable of making such a decision
9. Couples carrying genetic diseases - Yes as long as they're not fatal diseases
10. Mixed-race couples - Yes

Answer 5

Anyone who wants to get married should be able to. Marriage is a concept that has changed so dramatically over the last century (approx.) that it is ridiculous for anyone to try and limit the appropriate candidates. Even your no. 3 (by which I'm sure you meant "Groups of more than 2 people", because marriage generally is between 2 people), which I don't agree with personally, should not be restricted - there are many far more important things over which to worry. If a man wants 2 wives and they are both OK with it, why not? If 3 women decide they all love each other equally, who is it hurting?
American govt. has progressed steadily to become more liberal, and there's no reason to believe it should stop. Your no. 10, after all, was almost universally illegal for centuries, and now those who oppose it are bigots.
There is too much hate in the world to deny anyone any semblance of love.

Answer 6

I have no issue with anyone that wants to enter into a legal contract. I really like the idea of a limited duration for marriage. Like fishing, the license expires and you have to decide if you wish to continue. There should be a "renew" option or you should be able to let the marriage laps (with minor paperwork).

Now groups are an issue. Most contracts are between two parties and adding to that tends to cause problems. If a special "polygamy" license was issued it would have to be very specific and would then probably result in a higher cost.

Answer 7

Yes to all!
Marriage does not equal offspring so a couple of your examples shouldn't matter, like mentally ill, unable to reproduce, or couples carrying genetic diseases.
I have been married 15 years, we have no children, we have no faith, we are not felons, we are not mixed race, we are generally not mentally ill that bad, etc. Marriage is a partnership with another person. It doesn't mean you have to have kids.

Answer 8

Marriage is a union of two agreeing parties.
I've seen same-sex (gay couples) have stronger, more loving unions than hetero's (sorry but true), so
Yes on 1
No on 2 - that just shacking up
No on 3 - that's just laziness to commitment
?? on 4 (is that no God or cheating?)
Yes on 5 because you can't punish them for biology (they can adopt
yes on 6
yes on 7
yes on 8 - they deserve love and commitment too
yes on 9 - everyone has some defaults in their genes EVERYONE!
10 - yes on that - see #9 (everyone has someone special in the closet, a black cousin, mentally disabled aunt, etc)

It's just the way it is!

Answer 9

1. Yes, no reason why they shouldn't be able to
2. No, marriage is supposed to be a committed partnership between two people, not a short-term endeavor
3. No, see first part of answer 2
4. No, see first part of answer 2
5. Yes, see answer 1
6. Yes, see answer 1
7. No, see first part of answer 2
8. Yes, see answer 1
9. Yes, see answer 1
10. Yes, see answer 1

Answer 10

Yes to all.

Why people get married should not be any concern of those of us who are not involved in the direct union of the two people. In other words, of what concern is it to you that two people decided and determine to get married. How does that affect you?